Case Name: VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH V. NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA RESPONDENTS AND ANOTHER
Petition Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 8991 OF 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 416
Date of Judgement: 24.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. K. MAHESHWARI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR.
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court in the present case examined the procedural limits of supervisory jurisdiction for High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein an application to amend the plaint, involving a suit for eviction was filed by the Appellants. This is also an important precedent with regard to the continuance of a civil suit post death of the Original Appellants.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The father of the Appellant who was also a party to the case (hereinafter called Original Appellant), owned a shop which was let out to the father of the Respondents as monthly tenants. In 2005, the Original Appellant filed a suit for eviction of the tenants, citing pending arrears, permanent alterations, sub-letting the premises to another tenant and bonafide need of the plaintiff and his family members. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction on the ground that the need of the Appellant to evict the tenants was not proven to be reasonable and bonafide. The Court was doubtful of the Appellant’s intentions, noting that although the Appellant stated he wanted to start a business, it wasn’t specified of what nature.
Aggrieved, the Original Appellant preferred an appeal against the decree during which he passed away. As legal heirs of the landlord, the Appellants filed a petition to amend the plaint, citing that the father had originally pleaded for bonafide need of eviction. The Appellate Bench, to avoid multiple suits and decide all questions on finality, allowed the amendment. However, this was set aside by the High Court on a Writ Petition filed by the Respondents. The Appellants preferred appeal to the Supreme Court as a last resort.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court can examine the merits or demerits of the case while granting the leave to amend the plaint?
- Can the application of amendment of the plaint by legal heirs be refused on the ground that the bonafide need to evict the respondents eclipsed with the death of the landlord?
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the High Court committed an error by going into the merits of the case to set aside the decision and had not considered the pleadings of the father who was the Original Appellant, that there was a bonafide need to evict the premises for him and his family. Even if it was not mentioned, in such a scenario, the Counsel further argued that the surviving legal heirs could not be prevented from filing subsequent submissions for substantiating the bonafide need and that the Respondent had the opportunity to oppose the claims.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Original Appellant did not depose during cross examination that his family members needed the premises. The Counsel further argued that the High Court granted the Appellants the liberty to file fresh proceedings for eviction and that the suit could not be continued after death.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, erred in interfering with the Appellate Bench’s decision to grant the amendment to the plaint. The Court noted that the decision of the Appellate Bench was based on the fact that the Original Appellant, in his plaint, had pleaded for bonafide eviction of the premises, which was clear from the paragraphs of the plaint. Moreover, the Court highlighted that this was admitted by the Respondent-tenants in the Trial Court as ‘subsequently given up’. Therefore, despite the bonafide need to evict being clear in the pleadings, the presumption of the High Court that it was only for the landlord and not his family members was held to be factually incorrect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the High Court failed to notice the same.
Additionally, referring to Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia 2017 INSC 1240, the Court emphasised that an amendment to the plaint does not depend on whether the case will eventually succeed in trial. Article 227 of the Constitution restricts the High Court to examine whether the lower courts have acted within their jurisdiction and no further and that the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Court, to review or reassess the evidence considered by the lower court for its decision. Especially in the absence of a statutory bar to amend the plaint, the Court found the High Court to have committed an error in interfering with the merits of the case under Article 227.
With regard to the second issue, referring to Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders 1975 INSC 75, the Court acknowledged that subsequent events have material significance on the relief of the parties and that it is not prevented from taking cognizance of such events. Such events instill a fundamental impact on cases and therefore affect the substantial justice of parties. As quoted in the judgement, ‘…Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated…’.
Moreover, the decision of the Appellate Bench was under Order XLI Rule 25 of the CPC, to determine a question of fact which affects the right decision of the suit on merits, as it was found necessary as per the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Court held that the intervention of the High Court was not called for, given that the Respondents were allowed to amend their written submissions accordingly.
CONCLUSION
Hence, the Supreme Court concluded that under Article 227, the High Court’s power is confined to supervisory jurisdiction, which does not delve into questions of fact, but only questions of law on jurisdiction, that it cannot review or reassess evidence on record of the lower courts and cannot act as an Appellate Court.
